For those who have spent years within the ranks of military professionals, an inevitable transition occurs as they leave those ranks, a necessary step forward to continue their lives, usually as an employee or entrepreneur. Most will leave the military with families (and the obligations that go along with them), “stuff” that has yet to be fully paid for, and far too often less-than-perfect bodies and minds for their age, a result of having borne the routinely arduous task of exercising our Nation’s will, whenever and wherever it was needed. Even with such sacrifice to their credit however, veterans are finding the transition from military to civilian life to be increasingly difficult, and a disturbing number are unsuccessful, ending up unemployed, despondent, even suicidal. How did we get here?

At this point in time, our Nation has enjoyed several decades without a conflict that required most of its citizens to participate. Even through the Korean and Vietnam War eras, when the draft was still in effect, the proportion of Americans who volunteered or were forced into service was only a fraction of the numbers who served during World War II. This trend has continued, as today’s military – both active duty and reservists comprised entirely of volunteers – represents less than one percent of our overall population. As that era “when everyone personally knew someone in the military” falls ever deeper into history, we as a Nation are largely losing the ability to relate, perhaps even to comprehend what it means to wear this country’s uniform.

One could argue that the modern-day media, with its near-real-time access to worldwide operations, offers an unprecedented opportunity for Mr. and Mrs. American to understand what those in the military do, what is expected of them, and the sacrifices they make.

The reality, however, is that the news only goes so far, it can only dig so deep within the time allotted. For those who are interested enough to watch it, any news segment inevitably talks about what is happening, how we are responding, and the plight of those caught up in the situation, whatever it may be. Within the abbreviated coverage of any military operation overseas, it is impossible to impart the true essence of the lives lived, and what it means to be there doing our country’s bidding in some of the worst circumstances that man and Nature can conjure. Even so, the very essence of what our military does – projecting America’s presence within critical world venues and standing guard over our collective interests – is only rarely newsworthy. From the military’s perspective however, not being newsworthy is most often a good and desirable thing.

So where does that leave us, as a country and society? The end result of the dynamics mentioned above is that we have a segment of our society – the veteran – that possesses extraordinary potential, and yet is largely unrecognized and underutilized by Corporate America. Part of this is a byproduct of the relative peace we as a Nation have enjoyed. In a larger sense, it is a wonderful thing that 99% of Americans do not have to be prepared for, or exposed to, the worst that mankind can offer. But how is it that those who put themselves in harm’s way are left increasingly misunderstood and disenfranchised?

Put simply, the military’s job is to be prepared for war. Warfare does not lend itself to deliberation. Literal life-or-death decisions must be made expeditiously, and the communications which support them must be imparted succinctly and accurately, often within highly confused and obfuscated environments. This environmental attribute gives rise to an entirely unique language, a spectrum of abbreviations, acronyms, and military jargon that supports these inherent needs, but at the same time isolates the veteran from his or her civilian counterpart within Corporate America. To counter this, the need to explain their accomplishments “in long hand” has been the focus of countless hours of training imparted to separating military members, en route toward their post-service civilian lives. As a function of language, this is something that can be overcome by translation, but too often the Human Resources professional need not bother when there is an overabundance of available applicants who already speak the “corporate language” in their In-Box, if not their waiting room.

Culturally however, there are even larger impediments to communication in play. One piece of feedback that is routinely given to résumé writing veterans is to focus more on their individual accomplishments, put in terms of the actual outcomes achieved as a result of their actions. While this may be the accepted standard against which civilian workers are measured against their peers – or more to the point, against other applicants – it is often wholly counter to the cultural ethos and mindset of the military veteran. The military, and what it does, is and always will be a team effort. To anyone trying to comprehend accomplishments of the individual within a military setting, this is an essential concept. The military, by design, focuses on crises and the steps needed to overcome same. If you are doing your job effectively and efficiently, you are routinely not creating a problem. Ergo, you will not get attention, as that attention – often a very limited resource – will instead be focused on those areas that do require a concerted effort to overcome. Therefore, again by design, the question is not, “What did I do?” but rather “What did we do as a team?” or perhaps, “How did I keep from getting attention?”

While former military personnel can certainly (and eventually) adjust to the cultural norm within a new civilian job, the point at which these disparate cultures manifest to the greatest detriment, both to veterans and to the business that would hire them, is within the job application process. Civilian applicants, who perhaps have worked for several different companies over their careers, have become accustomed to putting their accomplishments to paper, and doing so in a manner that makes clear how they distinguish themselves from their peers. Military applicants, in contrast, many of whom entered the military straight out of high school or college and so know no other meaningful perspective, tend to express their accomplishments in terms of “team” and “what we did” as a group, whatever form that group might take. Also, the concept of wording accomplishments in terms that highlight the resulting outcome will prove foreign to the military applicant. As expressed earlier, the desired outcome, more often than not, is the maintenance of a peaceful and stable status quo. It is when the job is not accomplished as desired that (the newsworthy) outcome is realized.

Another difference between Corporate America’s prototypical culture and the military’s involves the attribution of accomplishments. Leaders in the military derive recognition based on the development and documented achievements of their subordinates; it is the “training of their replacements” that gets recognized and rewarded. Is this to say that superiors never take credit for their subordinates’ work? No it is not. Rather, the focus on the individual’s own accomplishments is most often measured not by personal achievement, but rather by the achievements of the subordinates who have been fostered, nurtured, and (routinely) trained by that superior. There are certainly examples of this type of cultural selflessness within Corporate America, but it is not nearly as pervasive as within the military, where it is not just encouraged, but expected.

These concepts may run counter to the hiring philosophy of many companies, but while the veteran community does indeed represent only a small fraction of the overall pool of potential employees, the Human Resources professional would do well to seriously consider the upside of tailoring their hiring approach toward accommodating the veteran applicant’s disparate perspective. Failure to do so means that they will surely miss out on some of the more desirable traits that may seem increasingly rare within the civilian workforce, but which are commonplace among those in uniform: loyalty, commitment, perseverance, innovation, tolerance, adaptability, detail orientation, and a deep sense of responsibility, morality, and patriotism, just to name a few. These are not traits unique to the military, to be sure, but given the experience, maturity, and environmental exposure that veterans can bring to the workplace, these added attributes can only serve to make for an even more desirable employee. Consider too that for the retired veteran, typically meaning one who has served twenty years or more in uniform, it is very possible you will be bringing on an employee that places a very high value on the stability that the military offered, potentially someone you won’t have to (or want to) replace for a decade or two.

How would that impact your HR workload?

Mark A. McHugh, ETC(SW/AW), USN(Retired)
mark.mchugh@verizon.net